[sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter
"A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com> Thu, 26 July 2018 22:41 UTC
Return-Path: <mahoney@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D140F131291 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vsZIgiC7e1K9 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87DC313125A for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mutabilis-2.local ([47.186.17.148]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w6QMetiF001464 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:41:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mahoney@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.17.148] claimed to be mutabilis-2.local
To: marianne.mohali@orange.com, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <99fca528-53ff-14f5-4a6e-fba651ff9f90@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:40:55 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/bxGO8m8F6lKhdZ2D8ZcvJoasDXg>
Subject: [sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:41:07 -0000
Hi Marianne, Thanks for addressing all of the feedback so far. In preparation for the Doc Shepherd Write-up, I have run idnits, gone through the ID Checklist, and made my own pass through the draft. I have the following feedback below -- Thanks! Jean ------------------------------------------------- Minor issues: idnits found issues in the Abstract, disclaimers, and key words: idnits: "The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5502, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5502 though, so this could be OK." This issue can be fixed with a few tweaks: - Delete the first mention of RFC5502 (citations are not allowed in Abstracts) - s/This document updated RFC5502/This document updates RFC 5502/ - s/ABNF in RFC5502/ABNF in RFC 5502/ (When RFCs are mentioned rather than cited, they should have the form "RFC NNNN" rather than "RFCNNNN") idnits: "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work..." I found some reuse of RFC5502 text in the Abstract and in Section 1.2. You can contact Elburg to see if he is willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, or you can include text from Section 6.c.iii from https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/IETF-TLP-5_001.html. If you are using xml2rfc, you would set the 'ipr' attribute on the 'rfc' tag to "pre5378Trust200902". See Appendix A of RFC7749 for more info. idnits: "The document seems to lack both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords." To fix this, the following section needs to be added after the Introduction: 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Section 5.2. ABNF Add the following to address errata ID 4648: This document allows choosing between addr-spec and name-addr when constructing the header field value. As specified in RFC 8217, the "addr-spec" form MUST NOT be used if its value would contain a comma, semicolon, or question mark [RFC8217]. Section 6. IANA Considerations Append the following after "sub-registry" (in paragraphs 2 and 3): "within the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry: " Section 7. Call Flow Examples It would be nice if each step had a brief sentence describing what is happening. 10.1 Normative References Add references to RFC2119 and RFC8174 (for keywords), RFC3324 (for Trust Domain definition), RFC8217 (ABNF clarification). Move RFC 5502 from Informational References to this section. --------------------------------------------------- Nits: Abstract: s/services has been/services have been/ Section 1.1. General p 1. s/information on the IMS/information on session cases and the IMS/ p 3. s/correct the syntax/corrects the syntax/ s/some examples and/some examples, and/ Section 1.2. Basic Use Case p 2. Current: ...and apply the corresponding actions such as forward the request to an AS. At its turn, the AS has to go through a similar process of determining who is the current served user, what is his/her "registration state" and on which "session case" is the session. Suggested: ...and applies the corresponding actions such as forwarding the request to an AS. The AS then goes through a similar process of determining who is the current served user, what is his/her "registration state", and what is the "session case" of the session. p 3. s/the is/there is/ s/realized but/realized, but/ s/poses some/pose some/ Section 1.3. Problem Statement p 1. s/In case of/In the case of/ s/case and the terminating/case, and the terminating/ s/Receiving the call/When the AS receives the call/ s/remains the same and/remains the same, and/ Current: ..., there is no possiblity for a proxy to trigger an originating service for the diverting user or for an AS to execute... Suggested: ..., the S-CSCF cannot trigger an originating service for the diverting user, nor can an AS execute... Section 2. Applicability p 1. s/Trust Domain for/Trust Domain [RFC3324] for the/ Section 3. Proxy behavior and parameter handling no 3. Current: 3. The S-CSCF starts the analysis of filter criteria and triggers the served user AS for the terminating services to be executed by including in the INVITE request the P-Served-User header field with the "sescase" parameter set to "term" and the regstate to the corresponding value; Suggested: 3. The S-CSCF analyzes the filter criteria. It then sends to the AS of the served user an INVITE that includes the P-Served-User header field with the "sescase" parameter set to "term" and the "regstate" set to the corresponding value in order to trigger execution of terminating services; no 4. s/The received Request-URI is then replaced/The AS replaces the received Request-URI/ no 5. s/parameter by the/parameter with the/ no 6. s/request over to/request to/ no 7. s/and will perform/and performs/ Section 4. Clarifications of RFC 5502 procedures p 1. s/guidance that reminds and clarifies the/guidance for the handling of the/ bullet 1. s/This header MUST NOT/The P-Served-User header field MUST NOT/ s/that P-Served-User/that the P-Served-User/ bullet 2. Current: o Whether the "regstate" parameter is removed or not by the S-CSCF when processing the orginating after CDIV session case is out of the scope of this document. In one hand, it can either be considered that the S-CSCF is able to store the previous regstate value and that the same value applies or that the "regstate" is not relevant after a diverting service. On the other hand, the regstate can be combined to the orig-cdiv session case... Suggested: o Whether the S-CSCF removes the "regstate" parameter when it processes the orig-cdiv session case is out of the scope of this document. The S-CSCF could store the previous regstate value and that the same value applies, or the "regstate" may not be relevant after a diverting service, or the regstate could be combined with the orig-cdiv session case... Section 5.1. General p 2. Current: Because this document extends the existing sessioncase-param parameter in a special way and that it has been identified errors in the syntax of the P-Served-User header field [RFC5502], this document corrects and extends the header at the same time. Suggested: Because this document extends the existing sessioncase-param parameter, and because errors have been identified in the syntax, this document corrects and extends the P-Served-User header field. p 3. s/release 11/Release 11/ s/keep a/to maintain/ Section 7.1. Call diversion case p 1. Current: The following call flow shows a session establishement for Alice calls Bob which has a call diversion when busy towards Carol. Suggested: The following call flow shows a session establishment when Alice calls Bob, who has a call diversion service that diverts to Carol when Bob is busy.
- [sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipco… A. Jean Mahoney